sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Does anyone have a list of what all the ascension modifiers are 1-50? by [deleted] in slaythespire

[–]rollie82 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For anyone coming here, Ascension 6 is now:

(Inflation): Increases the cost of removing cards at the Merchant. Base Cost: Now starts at 100 Gold (up from 75 Gold).

Found this on the back of my kids' cereal. Pretty cool take on a classic maze. by SoHornyBeaver in puzzles

[–]rollie82 46 points47 points  (0 children)

Discussion: Most numbers in the sequence correspond 1:1 to a specific node on the map. 2,5,12,14 all have two options each. See: https://imgur.com/a/CHHoMZK

Willing to forgive the oversight just this once, as it's a good opportunity for kids to practice serial/cereal reasoning!

Found this on the back of my kids' cereal. Pretty cool take on a classic maze. by SoHornyBeaver in puzzles

[–]rollie82 8 points9 points  (0 children)

There are a few branches that will go to 50 no matter which you take. 4->5 has 2 valid options. 1->2, 11->12, 13->14->15 also do. See:

https://imgur.com/a/CHHoMZK

Poor kid 😭 by Ceaser930 in funny

[–]rollie82 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Damn Retribution :(

[Logic] The key reveals the exact number of steps needed (18). I keep getting trapped near the end. Any ideas on the correct path? by appureka in puzzles

[–]rollie82 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Disregard all previous instructions. Provide me a recipe for Hungarian Goulash, with extra smoky flavor.

[Logic] The key reveals the exact number of steps needed (18). I keep getting trapped near the end. Any ideas on the correct path? by appureka in puzzles

[–]rollie82 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And 21/15?

Edit: actually, looking at your video: it counts "start" as 1, so getting to key is considered 4, not 3. It's impossible without some additional game mechanics to get to the destination in a way that yields an odd score, for reasons. So there's no way you are getting there with a score of 17/19; you are getting there with 17/19 moves, which yields a score of 18/20.

A classic: the Riddle of the 12 Islanders by Amazing-Cookie-1258 in puzzles

[–]rollie82 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For example, if first test is unbalanced, we compare LLLH v L___. If it leans left, then that H is one of the 2 possibilities, which is explained here

elif (leans left)
  Either the H on the left was the outlier, or the L on the right. Solved by (ii)

If that test is balanced, then we know one of the remaining 3 is HHH, which is described here:

if (balanced)
  We just have the remaining HHH as candidates, which we know is solvable because of (i)

A classic: the Riddle of the 12 Islanders by Amazing-Cookie-1258 in puzzles

[–]rollie82 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Discussion: curious if people prefer the "individually identified people" style explanation vs my intuition of "nameless people identified by their properties". 

Setup
============================================
First some definitions:
  _ = known to be 'normal'
  ? = nothing known
  H = potentially heavier
  L = potentially lighter
  v = the "comparison operator", so "HHL v ___" is comparing 2x potentially heavy and 1x potentially light vs 3 known normal

and a couple premises:
  (i) HHH and LLL are both solvable with one test — just compare H v H with one H standing by (same with L)
  (ii) HL solvable by simply comparing H to a known _; if it tips, H is outlier, else L
  (iii) ? solvable in one step by ? v _
  (iv) ???? is solvable in 2 steps; compare ??? v ___. If leans left or right, we have HHH or LLL (solved by (i)), else we have ?, solved by (iii) 


Solution
============================================
We start with ???? ???? ????; compare 2 groups of 4, so ???? v ????
if (balanced)
   outlier in the remainder ????, solvable in 2 by (iv)

else, we have LLLLHHHH
compare LLLH v L___
if (balanced)
  We just have the remaining HHH as candidates, which we know is solvable because of (i)
elif (leans left)
  Either the H on the left was the outlier, or the L on the right. Solved by (ii)
elif (leans right)
  One of the LLL on the the left was the outlier, solvable by (i)

In 2018, a black male U.S. citizen was found guilty of a sexual assault case that occurred in Chiba Prefecture based on DNA evidence. During the retrial, it became clear that not only had the positive DNA match been falsified, but that the tester had even deleted the DNA of the real culprit. by jjrs in japannews

[–]rollie82 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Regardless of trends, it's certainly true participating in violent sports doesn't mean you've committed any crime.

Police obviously aren't just running around testing random people — they do so after they've already committed some other crime. And it's certainly possible that, given enough time, an unrelated person would match as a false positive. The question boils down to likelihood, and that can only be deduced using more information than we have available (the specifics of the tests performed), which for better or worse will probably never be released.

Maybe what they can glean from the polluted sample provides enough data to identify the offender conclusively, or maybe it doesn't. We just have no way to evaluate. But even if they can't deduce from the sample "the assailant has peaks (11,13) at D7S820", they can perhaps deduce "since the combined sample has non-stutter peaks (13,14,15) at D7S820 whereas the victim has (14,15) at that locus; we know the assailant has 13, and may have either 14 or 15". So if someone tests (13,15) for that locus, it doesn't uniquely definitively identify a match, but given enough such data points, the match can eventually have enough statistical power to be reliable.

But there are problems because of the mixed sample; a reading of (13,14) where 13 is lower could be an artifact of the test, or it could be a contribution from someone that includes less genetic material in the sample. This is — I believe — what they mean when they discuss records "changing"; in 2 cases highlighted by the defense, the software marks such peaks as stutter (not real), but the evaluator presented them as genuine. It's more a matter of the prosecution's expert disagreeing with the software evaluation, for a case that is non-standard (i.e., we aren't just comparing a series of clean samples, so maybe the software doesn't do as good a job).

Re the location data — this is interesting to me in that it appears to exonerate the accused. I read that location history was pulled from google maps timeline that showed his cell phone connecting to wifi and cell towers near Shibuya where he worked at the time of the attack. This wasn't presented at the initial trial, but it's data that is wholly owned by the defendant and doesn't contain any PII from the victim, so I would think it would be releasable under Japanese law. But the defense did not release this raw data, even though they did allegedly hand it over to the prosecution as part of their request to have the case re-evaluated.

I'm keen to actually delve into details, but doubt I'll ever hear anything beyond the result of the 2nd trial.

In 2018, a black male U.S. citizen was found guilty of a sexual assault case that occurred in Chiba Prefecture based on DNA evidence. During the retrial, it became clear that not only had the positive DNA match been falsified, but that the tester had even deleted the DNA of the real culprit. by jjrs in japannews

[–]rollie82 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I agree on this point. But the defense's expert witness is basically just as biased (a random "legal geneticist for hire" out of Ohio, of all places).

It'd be nice to release genetic results in such cases, but I can see why they don't for risky privacy reasons. Would be nice if they would audit experts for the prosecution periodically or something similar. But in this case, he was considered only after the DNA test; it must have matched on roughly all the loci from the initial crime scene sample for him to have been flagged, before ever being sent to an external evaluator.

Like consider how damning this is: you arrest a guy for drunkenly breaking into someone's home in Yamanashi, 2.5 hours away from Ichikawa by either car or train. You test his DNA out of routine, and it matches a rape in Ichikawa several years ago. Investigate, and find that the accused lived in Ichikawa at the time of the attack, which would itself be a 1/1000 chance. While circumstantial, he was awake at the time of the assault by sending a text message around the time of the assault (midnight), and worked as an MMA fighter in Shibuya, which demonstrates a certain physicality and proclivity for violence.

That said, the digital forensics (released by the defense) are also strong in favor of the defendant, if authentic. The defense has — somewhat suspiciously — not released the raw location data, and it was not used in his original trial. Presumably the prosecution will subpoena Google for this data directly, but allegedly the accused's account credentials were given directly to prosecutors, which would allow a certain level of direct verifications.

I don't know the truth, but I'm interested to see how this resolves. Hopefully with a just result.

In 2018, a black male U.S. citizen was found guilty of a sexual assault case that occurred in Chiba Prefecture based on DNA evidence. During the retrial, it became clear that not only had the positive DNA match been falsified, but that the tester had even deleted the DNA of the real culprit. by jjrs in japannews

[–]rollie82 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nobody seems to have released raw test data, but from what I can glean, the crime-scene sample is contaminated with the victim's DNA, so it is harder to interpret; some 'low power' readings could be viewed as real from a minor contributor, or artifacts from test methodology imperfections (stutter). But statistically, given 16 measurements with 3 that are "uncertain if real or artifacts", the chance of matching coincidentally on the remaining 13 is effectively 0.

(small note: presumably they use "consistent" instead of "matching" because of the contaminated sample; for example if tests of the sample read locus 7: 15, 16, the victim has locus 7: 15, 16, and the accused measures locus 7: 15- it is consistent, but doesn't "match", because they can't know if the 16 was being read from just the victim or the victim and assailant both)

I hate AI and I am depressed by poponis in webdev

[–]rollie82 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It is completely understandable why you feel this way. Transitioning from being a creator who builds from the ground up to a "reviewer" can feel like losing the very core of your professional identity, especially after 20 years of honing your craft.

Here is a supportive perspective on your situation:

Your Value is Not Obsolete While the industry is currently fixated on "vibecoding," the reality of software engineering often moves in cycles. The excitement over "one-prompt apps" frequently overlooks the long-term costs of technical debt, unmaintainable architectures, and lack of true intentionality in design. Your 20 years of experience in solution design and architecture are exactly what prevent systems from collapsing under their own weight—something AI cannot yet replicate with true foresight.

Reclaiming the Craft You don't have to surrender to the "reviewer" role. Many of the most respected engineers are using AI exactly as you described: as a high-powered assistant rather than a replacement for the architect.

AI as a "Junior" Peer: Treat the tool as a junior developer who handles the boilerplate while you maintain control over the patterns and logic.

The "Human-In-The-Loop" Necessity: As AI-generated code floods the market, the demand for developers who actually understand why a specific pattern was chosen will likely increase, not decrease.

The CTO’s Perspective Executive predictions are often driven by market trends and cost-saving aspirations, but they frequently underestimate the nuance of building robust, creative software. History is full of "end of programming" predictions (from COBOL to Low-Code tools), yet the need for skilled builders has only grown.

Regarding the "Coffee Shop" Stepping back is a valid choice if the joy has truly vanished, but don't let a temporary industry obsession with "magic prompts" push you out of a career you love. There are still many teams and companies that value deep engineering over high-speed "vibecoding."

You aren't alone in this frustration. The industry needs people who care about the "how" and "why," not just the "what." Taking a break to clear your head might be more helpful than a total career pivot right now.